Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (5):945-958 (2013)
|Abstract||Animal welfare scientific literature has accumulated rapidly in recent years, but bias may exist which influences understanding of progress in the field. We conducted a survey of articles related to animal welfare or well being from an electronic database. From 8,541 articles on this topic, we randomly selected 115 articles for detailed review in four funding categories: government; charity and/or scientific association; industry; and educational organization. Ninety articles were evaluated after unsuitable articles were rejected. The welfare states of animals in new treatments, conventional treatments or control groups with no treatment were classified as high, medium or low according to one or more. More articles were published in which the welfare of animals in new treatments was better than that of animals in the conventional or no treatment groups, demonstrating a positive result bias. Failure to publish studies with negative or inconclusive results may lead to other scientists unnecessarily repeating the research. The authors’ assessments of the welfare state of the groups were similarly rated high, medium or low, and it was found that new treatments were rated lower if the research was funded by industry, and higher when funded by charities, with government funding agencies intermediate. These differences were not evident in the Five Freedoms assessment, demonstrating an authors’ assessment bias that appeared to support the funding agencies’ interests. North American funded publications rated the welfare of animals in New treatments higher and those in a Conventional or No Treatment lower, compared with European-funded publications. It is concluded that preliminary evidence was provided of several forms of publication bias in animal welfare science|
|Keywords||Animal welfare Five Freedoms Industry Publication bias Research funding|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David J. Mellor (2009). The Sciences of Animal Welfare. Wiley-Blackwell.
C. R. W. Spedding (2000). Animal Welfare. Earthscan Publications.
Kirsten Schmidt (2011). Concepts of Animal Welfare in Relation to Positions in Animal Ethics. Acta Biotheoretica 59 (2):153-171.
James Yeates (2013). Animal Welfare in Veterinary Practice. Wiley-Blackwell.
John M. Kistler (2000). Animal Rights: A Subject Guide, Bibliography, and Internet Companion. Greenwood Press.
Gavrell Ortiz & Sara Elizabeth (2004). Beyond Welfare: Animal Integrity, Animal Dignity, and Genetic Engineering. Ethics and the Environment 9 (1):94-120.
David Fraser (2008). Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell.
Kathy Rudy (2011). Loving Animals: Toward a New Animal Advocacy. Univ of Minnesota Press.
Georges Chapouthier & Jean-Claude Nouët (eds.) (1998). The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights: Comments and Intentions. Ligue Française des Droits De L'Animal.
Cynthia Petrie Smith (2000). Animal Welfare and Ethics Resources for Youth and College Agricultural Educators. U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Agricultural Library, Animal Welfare Information Center.
James W. Yeates (2010). Death is a Welfare Issue. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (3):229-241.
S. Kuczaj, K. Tranel, M. Trone & H. Hamner Hill (2001). Are Animals Capable of Deception or Empathy? Implications for Animal Consciousness and Animal Welfare. Animal Welfare. Special Issue 10:161- 173.
J. F. Hurnik & Hugh Lehman (1988). Ethics and Farm Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 (4):305-318.
S. Kuczaj, K. Tranel, M. Trone & H. Hamner Hill (2001). Are Animals Capable of Deception or Empathy? Implications for Animal Consciousness and Animal Welfare. Animal Welfare Supplement 10.
Added to index2012-11-27
Total downloads3 ( #213,250 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,826 )
How can I increase my downloads?